. An eternal excuse for black crime, poverty, or whatever the grievance of the day is
I mean, I was talking about 1864, when it was still a big issue. Not contemporary, sure, but also the example I was using. You know, cause easy to understand
There are algorithms that are 95% effective at determining race from name/age/zip code. Fact is, different groups have different ideas on good first names for babies, and tend to be geographically clustered.
And, beyond that, there are a lot of ways to extrapolate race/gender/etc. from a dataset. Hell, knowing if you liked Glee on FB gets it right a significant percentage of the time.
There either are confounds with race, or there are not. If there are no confounds, Microsoft's project will analyze the data and discover that (it's a good thing). If there aren't MS's project will identify which proxies for race should be removed, or otherwise accounted for.
Rhetorically clever, but wrong. People are concerned because of the effect the bitcoin mining is having on the overall network. If they were using the electricity to power a super-collider, it would have the same problem (assuming it's comparable, I don't know). The correct analog for ISPs would be if cable modem users ( who share bandwidth) were suddenly having people using 150% of their alloted bandwidth 100% of the time. It breaks the total resources available for all. And knowing if the uptick is permanentish (new factory) or transient (bitcoin mining0 helps determine if the solution is to shut it down or build new infrastructure.
You are proposing abuse of monopoly pricing power. That is not "the invisible hand of the market".
They're the exact same thing. Or rather, I challenge you to tell me how they are different.
don't worry about what customer is doing with it
That's beyond stupid. Knowing how long you have a customer who will be using X kw/hours lets you know how much to put into long term investments to serve them.
An algorithm that uses historic data, which was distorted by human bias, to predict future events. These reinforce human bias from the past. For instance, did you know that in 1864, practically no black people in the South ever paid a debt back? If you use that fact (which was, you know, caused by slavery) to figure that black people were higher credit risks, which meant higher rates, which meant more defaults, which meant worse credit, etc, your algorithm is biased.
Henry Ford figured out that when he paid his workers more than the prevailing wage at the time, it actually increased his own wealth even more because suddenly his workers could afford to buy his cars.
That's not true,and there's no way to make that work mathematically. He raised wages because his workers kept quitting.
While I agree with the reform party fizzling out, it did get 18% of the vote in 1992. And that's the thing, it's not likley that any third party will ever do better.
Baby boomers: The transistor. The laser. The internet. Manned moon landings. Manufacturer to the world.
Just like a boomer, claiming credit for shit their parents did. Transistors (1947), Laser (1960), ARPAnet (1969), Manned Moon Landings (1969). Manufacturer to the world was the 40's and 50's (when the rest of the world's economy was destroyed). The Boomers were between 8 and 24 when the moon landing happened. So, yes, you were alive during all that shit. But your generation didn't do any of it.
I'm not talking about drug trials. I'm talking about taking taking experimental medication for curative purposes. Oh, and that's not the FDA. This is about FDA oversight.
As far as I can tell, the main goal is to pass a law called "The Right to Try", so people misinterpret the previous state of the world and they get credit for the existing right to try benefits.
A side benefit is that doctors making life-altering decisions on experimental medicine are denied the benefits of knowing the current results independent testing in progress, making accidents more likely and doctors more dependent on big pharma. Sorry, I meant to write "decrease job killing regulation"
People (especially, but not only journalists) need to stop writing about the titles/summaries of bills the author gives.
The governement was already not forbidding you. They were forcing your doctor to consult with the scientists running studies to make sure you were getting the best dose. Oh, and 0.1% of the time they said "those studies are going really bad, it's not an option.
And yes, I want the government from forbidding me from getting desperate and having snake oil salesman make a bunch of pitches that won't work and I don't understand. (Again, 99.9% of the time they let the experimental treatment happen, withing 24 hours if you say its time critical.) I'm not educated enough about medicine, nor will I be thinking clearly enough.
Those criteria already existed and patients with fatal diseases already had the right to risky medication. It was passed after the events that inspired the "Dallas Buyers Club". But the FDA was still involved, using the early results of testing to help the doctor come up with a treatment plan. Oh, and 0.1% of the time, they rejected an experiment because it wasn't going to work (More often than that, they worked with the doctors on improving the dosage or other parts of the prescription plan).
All this does is remove FDA oversight of these experiments, meaning the doctors performing them will get to base their decisions only on what pharma says, not the experts in the middle of running experiments.
Apple talks big, but they'll comply with any subpoena they get.
Apple fairly famously fought a subpoena recently. And while they (obviously) will comply if they were to lose the fight, they've also taken steps to minimize how much they will/can do.
But is it any better than the ATT, VZW, etc. apps that you can't get rid of and are close to worthless? Or ads on the lockscreen? Or full-screen browser ads? Or ads that take over the full screen of your app/game?
Those all sound bad. I recommend none of those. So don't put up with any of that shit either
Oh, a conversion is possible, for sure. But the OP was saying "just have them learn Linux, then choose an office suite, and then..." The right way to approach it is to produce one highly unified official distro, with all those decisions made. Hide most of the changes underneath a easy-to-use GUI. Get help staff ready, etc.
Although, your point about "already running Linux" is disingenuous. While ChromeOS, Android and embedded systems may all run Linux, none of them feel like linux. Most Android users cannot access the filesystem, ChromeOS is essentially booting directly into Chrome and SSHing into an embedded system has probably been 0 peoples way of learning Linux (highly technically people moving to Linux aside.)
Their official account will not be fine, and will now have to remain open to not only noisy activists, but bots and spam as well.
They can still choose not to engage with Twitter. But yes, saying you cannot block activists often means you cannot block bots/spam. Because you don't want the government to make the call as to which is which. Same reason that, if the government could make the call and block "spam phone calls", the [party-out-of-power] might suddenly only make spam calls. Free speech is hard, but better than the alternatives.
Because those companies aren't going to sell the cars... not to Uber. They'll just make a fucking app themselves. Uber's only value is the install base, and that's primarily only valuable in the driver community. (They'll then make an interoperable app they all own and split the market nicely between themselves.)
when the progress of science wasn't hindered by a few statistical accidents.
If you're going to move 100% of your profits to Ireland, then the Netherlands and onto the Caymen Islands to avoid paying taxes, and otherwise not give back to society, don't expect society to tolerate you externalizing your research costs.
Slashdot Mirror
100% digital cash is very useful for a dictatorship. Of course China is ahead.
I mean, I was talking about 1864, when it was still a big issue. Not contemporary, sure, but also the example I was using. You know, cause easy to understand
There are algorithms that are 95% effective at determining race from name/age/zip code. Fact is, different groups have different ideas on good first names for babies, and tend to be geographically clustered.
And, beyond that, there are a lot of ways to extrapolate race/gender/etc. from a dataset. Hell, knowing if you liked Glee on FB gets it right a significant percentage of the time.
There either are confounds with race, or there are not. If there are no confounds, Microsoft's project will analyze the data and discover that (it's a good thing). If there aren't MS's project will identify which proxies for race should be removed, or otherwise accounted for.
Rhetorically clever, but wrong. People are concerned because of the effect the bitcoin mining is having on the overall network. If they were using the electricity to power a super-collider, it would have the same problem (assuming it's comparable, I don't know). The correct analog for ISPs would be if cable modem users ( who share bandwidth) were suddenly having people using 150% of their alloted bandwidth 100% of the time. It breaks the total resources available for all. And knowing if the uptick is permanentish (new factory) or transient (bitcoin mining0 helps determine if the solution is to shut it down or build new infrastructure.
They're the exact same thing. Or rather, I challenge you to tell me how they are different.
That's beyond stupid. Knowing how long you have a customer who will be using X kw/hours lets you know how much to put into long term investments to serve them.
An algorithm that uses historic data, which was distorted by human bias, to predict future events. These reinforce human bias from the past. For instance, did you know that in 1864, practically no black people in the South ever paid a debt back? If you use that fact (which was, you know, caused by slavery) to figure that black people were higher credit risks, which meant higher rates, which meant more defaults, which meant worse credit, etc, your algorithm is biased.
That's not true,and there's no way to make that work mathematically. He raised wages because his workers kept quitting.
While I agree with the reform party fizzling out, it did get 18% of the vote in 1992. And that's the thing, it's not likley that any third party will ever do better.
Like happened in the 90's?
Just because the hippies were wrong to blame their parents doesn't mean its' wrong to blame them.
Just like a boomer, claiming credit for shit their parents did. Transistors (1947), Laser (1960), ARPAnet (1969), Manned Moon Landings (1969). Manufacturer to the world was the 40's and 50's (when the rest of the world's economy was destroyed). The Boomers were between 8 and 24 when the moon landing happened. So, yes, you were alive during all that shit. But your generation didn't do any of it.
I'm not talking about drug trials. I'm talking about taking taking experimental medication for curative purposes. Oh, and that's not the FDA. This is about FDA oversight.
As far as I can tell, the main goal is to pass a law called "The Right to Try", so people misinterpret the previous state of the world and they get credit for the existing right to try benefits.
A side benefit is that doctors making life-altering decisions on experimental medicine are denied the benefits of knowing the current results independent testing in progress, making accidents more likely and doctors more dependent on big pharma. Sorry, I meant to write "decrease job killing regulation"
People (especially, but not only journalists) need to stop writing about the titles/summaries of bills the author gives.
The governement was already not forbidding you. They were forcing your doctor to consult with the scientists running studies to make sure you were getting the best dose. Oh, and 0.1% of the time they said "those studies are going really bad, it's not an option.
And yes, I want the government from forbidding me from getting desperate and having snake oil salesman make a bunch of pitches that won't work and I don't understand. (Again, 99.9% of the time they let the experimental treatment happen, withing 24 hours if you say its time critical.) I'm not educated enough about medicine, nor will I be thinking clearly enough.
Those criteria already existed and patients with fatal diseases already had the right to risky medication. It was passed after the events that inspired the "Dallas Buyers Club". But the FDA was still involved, using the early results of testing to help the doctor come up with a treatment plan. Oh, and 0.1% of the time, they rejected an experiment because it wasn't going to work (More often than that, they worked with the doctors on improving the dosage or other parts of the prescription plan).
All this does is remove FDA oversight of these experiments, meaning the doctors performing them will get to base their decisions only on what pharma says, not the experts in the middle of running experiments.
And what's your plan for the ones who cannot get a better job? They're going to starve? Wield pitchforks?
Apple fairly famously fought a subpoena recently. And while they (obviously) will comply if they were to lose the fight, they've also taken steps to minimize how much they will/can do.
Those all sound bad. I recommend none of those. So don't put up with any of that shit either
Source? I seem to recall that they announced a moratorium on new coal plants.
Which is why the world is gonna fry in 2038. The Y2K problem was way overblown, so the 2038 problem must be as well. Why allocate resources to fix it?
Oh, a conversion is possible, for sure. But the OP was saying "just have them learn Linux, then choose an office suite, and then..." The right way to approach it is to produce one highly unified official distro, with all those decisions made. Hide most of the changes underneath a easy-to-use GUI. Get help staff ready, etc.
Although, your point about "already running Linux" is disingenuous. While ChromeOS, Android and embedded systems may all run Linux, none of them feel like linux. Most Android users cannot access the filesystem, ChromeOS is essentially booting directly into Chrome and SSHing into an embedded system has probably been 0 peoples way of learning Linux (highly technically people moving to Linux aside.)
They can still choose not to engage with Twitter. But yes, saying you cannot block activists often means you cannot block bots/spam. Because you don't want the government to make the call as to which is which. Same reason that, if the government could make the call and block "spam phone calls", the [party-out-of-power] might suddenly only make spam calls. Free speech is hard, but better than the alternatives.
Because those companies aren't going to sell the cars... not to Uber. They'll just make a fucking app themselves. Uber's only value is the install base, and that's primarily only valuable in the driver community. (They'll then make an interoperable app they all own and split the market nicely between themselves.)
If you're going to move 100% of your profits to Ireland, then the Netherlands and onto the Caymen Islands to avoid paying taxes, and otherwise not give back to society, don't expect society to tolerate you externalizing your research costs.
Comcast already owns like 30% of Hulu. Disney and Fox each also own like 30% apiece.